Can someone please confirm if there is a regression between python-netifaces-0.10.4 and python3-netifaces-0.10.9 where
netifaces.ifaddresses() on AF_NET6 returns the v6 netmask entry with a the CIDR. Is this by design, and if so why is it
not consistent with AF_NET for the v4 netmasks?
Changed behavior seen for AF_INET6 in python3-netifaces-0.10.9
Python 3.6.8 (default, Dec 5 2019, 15:45:45)
[GCC 8.3.1 20191121 (Red Hat 8.3.1-5)] on linux
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
Behavior seen for AF_INET6 in python-netifaces-0.10.4
Python 2.7.5 (default, Feb 26 2020, 04:21:27)
[GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-36)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
Hi,
Can someone please confirm if there is a regression between python-netifaces-0.10.4 and python3-netifaces-0.10.9 where netifaces.ifaddresses() on AF_NET6 returns the v6 netmask entry with a the CIDR. Is this by design, and if so why is it not consistent with AF_NET for the v4 netmasks?
Changed behavior seen for AF_INET6 in python3-netifaces-0.10.9 Python 3.6.8 (default, Dec 5 2019, 15:45:45) [GCC 8.3.1 20191121 (Red Hat 8.3.1-5)] on linux Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
Behavior seen for AF_INET6 in python-netifaces-0.10.4 Python 2.7.5 (default, Feb 26 2020, 04:21:27) [GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-36)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
Would appreciate if someone can please confirm if this is expected and the inconsistency between v4 and v6 in the netifaces 10.9 version.
Thanks, Sharmin